Amendments to pleadings must not change the fundamental nature of the case or introduce contradictory claims and should be sought diligently within the timeframe set by law.

ORDER :

M.NAGAPRASANNA, J.

Petitioner is before this Court calling in question an order dated 07.04.2025 by which the application filed in O.S.No.324/2011 by the petitioner-defendant No.3 under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC comes to be rejected by the Principal Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Anekal.

2. Heard Sri.Kushalappa B.M., learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.H.P.Leeladhar, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.4, 12 & 13.

3. A suit in O.S.No.324/2011 by the plaintiffs seeking partition and separate possession. The petitioner enters appearance, files his written statement in the year 2017, five years thereafter seeks to file an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC seeking amendment of the written statement and would submit that the concerned Court, owing to the objections filed by the co-defendant, rejects the application on the score that the amendment so sought, would be hit by proviso to Rule 17 of Order VI of CPC. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the original written statement so filed, all these facts are already narrated. What the petitioner would wanted to do with the amendment is to elaborate those statements made in the written statement, as also, certain other prayers to be added. The learned counsel would submit that it would not change the nature of the written statement, nor would cause prejudice to the plaintiffs.

4. The concerned Court answering the application, has held as follows:

"ORDER ON IA.No.18

IA.No.18 is filed by the defendant No.3 U/o 6 Rule 17 R/w. Sec.151 of CPC for amendment of written statement of defendant No.3.

2. By way of proposed amendment, the defendant No.3 want to add additional pleadings stating that the grandfather late Chinnappa Reddy during his life time purchased the properties bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 2 acre 15 guntas, house property bearing Khaneshumari No.3 situated at Thattannahalli Village, Anekal Taluk, Sy.No.3 measuring 1 ¾ guntas and 1 guntas, Sy.No.457 measuring 12 guntas situated at Madivala Village, Khaneshumari No.3 consisting of 10 Sq.feet of RCC house, 8 Sq.feet Mangalore tiled house, 4 Sq.feet A.C. sheet house and vacant plot totally 22 ankana situated at Thattanahalli Village, Anekal Taluk under registered sale deed dated 07.07.1932 from one Pilla Reddy. The Chinnappa Reddy executed gift deed dated 21.06.1951 in favour of defendant Nos.2 & 3 with regard item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of suit schedule properties. By virtue of said gift deed, the defendant No.3 became the absolute owner and in possession of item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. The plaintiffs and other defendants have no pre- existing right with respect to item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties, unless there is pre- existing right, question of executing release deed dated 21.01.1987 does not arises. Therefore alleged release deed is null and void and not binding on the defendant No.3. The defendant No.3 is the absolute owner and in possession of item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule properties. One Thimmareddy son of late Chinnappareddy and brother of the defendants have filed suit OS No.171/1954 against the Chinnappa Reddy and his wife Smt. Eramma, defendant No.1 before the 2nd Munsiff, Bengaluru seeking declaration with respect to property bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 3 acre 5 guntas and Sy.No.3 measuring 1 OS No.324/2011 guntas situated at Thattanahalli Village, Kasaba Hobli, Anekal Taluk. After trial the said suit came to be partly decreed. The property bearing Sy.No.8 measuring 3 acre 5 guntas and Sy.No.3 measuring 1 guntas are declared as self acquired properties of Thimmareddy and suit came to be dismissed with respect to his ½ share in item Nos.1, 3 to 6 of the suit schedule propertie